Red states are the poverty states

To be fair, at least in terms of Western States, it's damn difficult to maintain a viable tax base when Washington owns 80 or 90 percent of the usable land in your State.

 

]

A blatant -lie-, debunked dozens of times on this forum. Won't bother doing so again.

 

Somehow I doubt that you will not be back with another blatant lie denying red state socialism.

 

Red States are NOT poorer because the costs of living in Blue Stars are astronomical by comparison. From housing to utilities and taxes, working people in blue states have LESS discretionary income.

Try to find a 2 bedroom, 1000 sq ft apartment for $800 a month, 3-2-1 house on 1/5th acre for $1000 a month rent or mortgage, or a 2000 square foot house rent or mortgage for $1200 in NYC, Boston, or other blue cities. You'll pay more than that for an efficiency apartment in a bad part of the city in NYC.
Nor any adjustment for NOT state income taxes in Texas and Florida. Utilities bills are higher generally in blue states too.

 

The trade deals that Clinton signed were written, sponsored and supported by GOP lawmakers. The majority of Democrats voted against them but just enough to get them passed with almost unanimous support from GOP house and senate members. Clinton should have used his veto power, but instead he sold out the American workers and signed. However to suggest that NAFTA or GATT were hatched by Democrats is pure bull crap.

 

Read your first sentence. It explains it to you.

 

The reason for the "blue state giver, red state taker" hoax-LIE-farce is to attempt to conceal the IRREFUTABLE FACTS that the big blue states, namely California, lead the country in per capita welfare receipts by leaps and bounds, and that welfare recipients in the US vote overwhelmingly Democrat. "Red State Socialism" was a lie when it was made up on the LW site "wallethub," a lie in the dozens of LW sewer pipe threads on the topic here, and just as much a lie right now today. You haven't even attempted to document the lie, and I have no doubt you will not be documenting it with any reputable statistics from reputable sources... because they don't exist.

 

A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 Million in Tax Breaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html?_r=0

Why should a corporate welfare queen like Crooked Donnie pay little or no income taxes when he is worth billions?

The rich get government handouts just like the poor. Here are 10 of them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-just-like-the-poor-here-are-10-of-them/?ut

The red states tend to be the low wage states: right-to-work-for-less. Low wages is another form of socialism-for-the-rich. ie wage theft. In a capitalistic system, as opposed to supply-side socialism as supported by Crooked Donnie and Karl Marx, demand rivals supply in importance.

And when a poor person receives governmental assistance, just like the rich do, who benefits the most from the assistance?
The deadbeat rich. FIrst of all, the government is socializing business costs and then, businesses again benefit when that
poor person utilizes that governmental assistance to buy goods and services.....sometimes from the same business that employs them
like Walmart and Target.

The poorest states tend to be the red states. And the red states tend to receive more tax dollars than they send to the federal government.
THANKS BLUE STATES.

 

Because we tax income not wealth. Never learned that? Nor is deducting business expenses welfare, never learned that too?

Income tax deductions are not welfare and how is taxing capital gains welfare.

Let me ask you this would you rather have the capitial gains tax rate set back at the Clinton 29% rate, the Gingrich/Kasich rate at 21% or the Bush43 rate of 15% and why.

The red states tend to be the low wage states: right-to-work-for-less. Low wages is another form of socialism-for-the-rich. ie wage theft. In a capitalistic system, as opposed to supply-side socialism as supported by Crooked Donnie and Karl Marx, demand rivals supply in importance.

What governmental assistance do the poor receive just like the rich and who beneifts from aid to the poor? The poor.

The money was taken from the rich in the first place where it would have benefitted them HUGELY and the rest of us had it stayed there. Are the poor better off because they have to have government assistance or would they be better off in good paying jobs?

As already explained because they have a disproportionate rate of the black population which has by far a highly disproportionate national rate of those in poverty. Why is the national rate of poverty in the black community so high in ALL states red and blue?

So yes thanks blue states for electing liberal/progressive/Democrats who want to keep those blacks impoverished and dependent of government so keep sending you tax money to where they live. Don't you think they have responsibility to do so?

 

The only way they get to the "red state socialism" lie narrative is by 1. adding all federal disbursements in a state, good and bad (hey, want a federal prison in your backyard? how about a rowdy military base?) that disproportionally affects lower population states, 2. including disbursements of national benefit such as parks money (making sparsely populated red states look "welfarish" despite it being federal lands money no individual receives) and federal agriculture, etc. subsidies, and 3. not accounting sunbelt migration that turns blue state high tax "givers" illogically into SS recipient retiree "takers" the minute they retire and move to Fla et al. The way they get to the "blue state giver" hoax is by 1. accounting certain large interstate corporate revenues at the tax situs (often HQs in big blue cities in blue states) instead of the revenue situs, 2. neglecting to factor out Delaware as faux host to businesses and franchise taxes due to its favorable corporate law, see "3" above... and a host of other factors not worth repeating as the drones will continue to bleat out the lie here and elsewhere regardless.

The top welfare states per capita in the US are overwhelmingly blue as a matter of irrefutable fact:

https://unpoliticallycorrect2016.wo...fare-states-13-of-the-15-are-democrat-states/

 

Nobody is more depend on government than corporate welfare queens!!!!
FIrst of all, corporations are governmental created entities. Corporations very existence is depend on government, not to mention all the rights
and benefits received by a business being incorporated from the government.

Many Con Artists criticize the social safety nets for the poor and the middle class, yet have no problem having the government socializing the
corporate welfare state; our government spends a whopping 100-150 billion dollars every single year on subsidizing major corporations.

This includes cash payments to farmers, overseas promotion of US products, fossil fuel subsidies, business incentives (at the state, county, and city levels), interest rate subsidies for banks, retirement fund bank fees, individual giveaways, money spent on overpriced, above-market-value medications, corporate tax subsidies, corporate tax haven-caused revenue loss, and more.

If businesses paid a living wages, the need for food stamps would be eliminated. Food stamps is another form of corporate welfare.....taxpayers socializing
business costs once again.

Special tax cuts is a form of corporate welfare without question. When I drive to work, I can't claim my mileage as a tax deduction. But Good God almighty,
if I drive over to visit my rental property, that tax deduction is all mine. That is total BS. My business costs should be my responsibility, not having
the taxpayers socialize my business costs.

One would have to be born-again stupid to want to live on a conservative plantation: Low wages, little benefits, no worker's rights like in commie
countries, lots of welfare for the rich and little for the poor and the middle class in times of need. NO THANKS.

 

Where does the government get the money it gives the corporate welfare queens ? Other than ones like green energy companies as to the others the government gives them nothing but simply does not takes as much from them . In other words its their money to start with. The government gives them nothing

 

You can use labels like Republican and Democratic but the difference is progressive verses conservative.
Both ofnthese political parties exist as crime families. To argue one against the otherwise useless. They are both the root cause of all of our problems. If we had honest fair elections progressive voters would win every time. But we don't. And so most people don't care to vote. They know it's just to select the which crime family will be at the trough enriching themselves next. The high minded ideals of the progressive democrats are just that.nothing more. The American dream , that you can get rich is no longer viable. The truth is that there are 10 corporations who own virtually every company every product and they want to on every square inch of land every drop of water ,oil and gas.
The state's run by conservative governments restrict voting rights as much as possible , see Kansas. This is not how democracy works. American is not and has never been a democracy.
Now the entire federal government is conservative. Who will republicans blame ? Who will bail us out now ? Our government is going to collapse. It's too corrupt there is no more wealth to steal. What happens when China won't lend us anymore money?
Did you know that our federal government sells billions of dollars in bonds every month to service the debt , they even loan the money to buy the bonds at a low 3% interest rate. Kind of like a Ponzi scheme or a shell game. And so the debt grows that much every month. When it reaches a tipping point it won't matter about blue or red it won't matter what crime family was in power when the SHTF.
It's not if , it's when. And it's may be soon .

 

Corporations are governmental created entities. Some of these corporations are part of the something-for-nothing crowd. Corporations are not only
depend on government for its very existence, but rely on government just to be able to be in business, either directly or indirectly. So in other words,
it is not their money.

BTW.....the fossil fuel industries are always the first in line for its government hand-outs.
US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

 

Most corporations are publicly owned. No US tax payer money goes to big oil . In fact they give more in taxes than almiost anyone

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/

Now you claim the government is giving them money

Their supporting the rest of us

 

As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.

OOOPS....that's not all folks.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

 

By subsidies they mean money that wasnt taken from them not money that was given to them

The 3 companies I mentioned alone paid almost 70 billion and there are plenty more of them

They are givers not takers, only a fool or a progressive would believe otherwise

 

Corporations are legal entities which we as an economic system find quite vital. Do you have any clue how in the dark ages we would all be living were it not for the economic system of incorporation?

Tell me what do you invest your savings into? Your retirement savings?

Safety nets that entangle people into them never to let them go are what are critized.

Businesses pay the value of the job in a competitive market, THAT is what compensation is based upon not some made up "living wage".

Neither can anyone else. There is no mileage deduction for normal travel distance to your place of work. But in you are required to buy tools you sure love that welfare don't you, or if you have to purchase uniforms or logo clothing you sure love that welfare don't you.

If the agent leaves from the office they do not get a deduction for driving to their office.

The business owner gets no subsidy just like you can on your taxes they write off EXPENSES from gross income to get to net income that is then subject to taxes. There is no subsidy.

Can you name the commie country where wages are higher?

What more benefits do you want?

What rights are there in commie countries that aren't here?

How about we end the time of need so they can provide for themselves?

 

Isn't that how president Obama wanted it?
"Spread the wealth around" he said.

 

Oh I get it, governmental assistance for governmental created entities known as corporations is fine,
but governmental assistance for the middle class and the poor is bad. So apparently for supply-side
socialists, it is not politically correct to refer to special tax cuts and financial incentives to businesses
as welfare, and thus it would be ok for corporate welfare queens to be reliant on taxpayer hand-outs
instead of providing for themselves.

It is basic capitalistic principle for the demand-side of the economic equation to be capitalized by
spreading that wealth to consumers, rather than redistibuting that wealth among the rich: PLUTOCRATIC SOCIALISM.

 

So you want to eliminate corporations? What is a corporation but a group of people who assemble together to persue some endeavor be it for profit or not?

How about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Tell me do you save and invest for your retirement?

And BTW I took the time to respond to your actual points how about responding to mine?

 

Charging any tax payer less be they a corporation or an individual is not welfare its simply allowing them to keep more of what the EARNED

 

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations.

Clearly there are some who do not agree with the above definition of what constitutes corporate welfare.

 

Where is your chart of real estate prices and taxes for each state, huh? They also are the least expensive states to live in. Democrat states are really into inflation - including the way Democrat racist politicians run off poor blacks and Latinos.